You are on page 1of 14

PRINCIPALS’ LEADERSHIP AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:

AN EXAMINATION OF THE TIMSS 1999

Milijana Suskavcevic, University of Texas at El Paso, USA


Sally Blake, University of Texas at El Paso, USA

Abstract
Pervasive and sustained student learning is more likely to occur in schools with
strong instructional leadership. Some researchers, however, question whether the
school leadership style makes a measurable difference in promoting school quality.
In this study a nationally representative data set is used to examine the association
between U.S.A. middle school principals’ leadership styles and student achievement
on the TIMSS 1999 mathematics and science testing. Pitner’s moderated effect model
of the leaders’ impact on school outcomes served as a theoretical framework, with the
construct of “collaboration and cooperation among teachers” as a moderating
variable. Statistically significant correlations among principals’ leadership style and
student performance on the TIMSS 1999 math and science testing were found, with
stronger correlations between the two variables for the sample of schools that have
school policies supporting teachers’ cooperation and collaboration.

INTRODUCTION
Access to quality science education is not equally dispersed across states, school
districts, and individual schools in the United States. The Third International Math
and Science Benchmarking Study provides evidence that some schools in the United
States are among the best performing schools in the world, but that world-class
science education is not available to all children. Providing quality science education
requires efforts from multiple stakeholder groups, including teachers, science
coordinators, and administrators (National Research Council, 1996). Numerous
researchers on school effectiveness have demonstrated some form of association
between effective schools and the type of leadership practiced by their principals
(Hallinger & Leithwood, 1994). However, a number of researchers who have
conducted studies with the sole purpose of finding statistically significant
relationships between instructional leadership and student achievement have failed
in that attempt (Leitner, 1994). The failure to some extent can be explained by the
methodological obstacles in the research in this area (Fidler, 1997). Introduction of
the standards-based school reform additionally contributed to the changes in
educational context in the U.S., providing a unique opportunity for researchers to
reexamine many issues that may play important roles in school effectiveness. The
TIMSS 1999 was conducted after a decade of standards-based instruction in the U. S.
schools. Data on school background variables and student achievement from this
study provides a solid opportunity for exploring the relationship between leadership
style and student achievement at the middle school level. It is our intent to
determine the extent to which principal leadership behaviors are related to student
math and science achievement.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The literature relevant to the topic involves studies that explore the relationship
between principals’ leadership and school outcomes. Included in this section will be
a brief overview of the TIMSS 1999. Through the decades of the twentieth century,
the role of school leaders in the United States greatly evolved and could generally
be characterized as highly transformative. Metaphorically, the dominant role of
school principals in the 1930s was one of a scientific manager. In the 1940s the
principal was expected to fulfill primarily the role of a democratic leader. In the
1970s the principal was viewed as a humanistic facilitator, and in the 1980s school
principals were expected to serve primarily as instructional leaders (Beck & Murphy,
1993). Even though instructional leadership received great popularity and pervaded
leadership literature during the 1980s, this notion was introduced a few decades
prior to this period. Mackenzie and Corey in 1954 were among the early writers who
referred to the school principal as an instructional leader of a school (Greenfield,
1987). De Bevoise (1984, pp.15) used the term to designate the “actions that school
principal takes, or delegates to others, to promote growth in student learning.”
A number of researchers have developed theoretical frameworks of instructional
leadership roles of school principals, contributing to the clearer conceptualizations
of the term. The works of Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, and Lee (1982) may be considered
pioneering efforts directed toward a deeper understanding of instructional
leadership roles of a school principal. These researchers emphasized that a school
principal, through his or her activities, roles, and behaviors in managing school
structures does not affect student achievement directly, in the ways the teachers do.
However, classroom teaching may be impacted by principals’ actions, such as setting
and clearly communicating high expectations for all students, supervising teachers’
instructional performance, evaluating student progress, and promoting a positive
teaching/learning environment. The works of Bossert et al. were expanded by the
studies of Murphy, Hallinger, Weil, and Mitman (1983), Hallinger and Murphy
(1985a), Sweeney (1982), and Smith and Andrews (1989).
Over the past decades, several comprehensive reviews have been conducted of the
literature on school administrators and their roles in schooling. The findings of these
reviews will be presented chronologically, not by their importance.
Lipham (1964) and Erickson (1967) reviewed the literature on school administration
prior to 1967. Whereas Lipham focused on the findings of the research investigations,
Erickson was primarily concerned with methodological issues. The latter highlighted
methodological weaknesses of the studies which were published in the professional
journals in educational administration during the 1964-1966 period. Both authors
concluded that the majority of studies reviewed used questionnaires with suspect
validity, which served as a predominant mode of data collection.
Bridges (1982) used 322 research reports on school administrators published during
the period of 1967-1980 for his review and focused primarily on methodological
issues. Three components of Halpin’s (1966) classic paradigm for research on
administrative behavior were used by Bridges to organize the body of empirical
research on school administrators. The three components are the behavior of the
administrator, the antecedent variables influencing such behavior, and outcomes,
which at least partially could be attributable to the administrator. In classifying
studies with respect to outcomes, Bridges (1982) made a distinction between those
studies dealing with the impact that school administrators have on school outcomes
and ratings of administrator’s effectiveness. In the “administrator’s impact” studies,
researchers attempted to determine whether administrators made measurable
differences in schooling. As observed by Bridges (1982, pp. 21), when assessing the
impact of school administrators, “researchers are far more likely to focus on
organizational maintenance than organizational achievement.” In his words:
“Organizational maintenance refers to the extent to which the workforce remains
intact as a group” (Bridges, 1982, pp.21), and “may be gauged in terms of morale,
cooperation among group members working with one another, and other indices of
job satisfaction” (Halpin, 1966, pp.37).
Hallinger and Heck (1996) stated that philosophical and methodological shifts (from
positivist, to post-positivist, critical theory, and constructivist) occurring in the last
decades in the educational research arena did not have a larger impact on the studies
of administrative influences on school outcomes. The research on the relationship
between the two was largely examined from a positivist paradigm and with a heavy
reliance on quantitative methodology.
As the notion of educational leadership style evolved through the past decades, so
did the research of the impact of the school leaders’ style on the school. At the time
when the idea of instructional leadership became dominant, a number of researchers
conducted empirical studies in an attempt to determine if the instructional
leadership roles, behaviors, and activities practiced by school leaders may be
correlated with school outcomes. The large wave of research on instructional
leadership occurred in 1980s and 1990s.
Hallinger and Heck (1996) used Pitner’s (1982) framework of administrator effects
as criteria for classifying 40 studies on instructional leadership and school outcomes
published during the period 1980-1995. All studies reviewed were cross-sectional
and non-experimental in nature, meaning that researchers had little or no influence
on extraneous variables. Five theoretical approaches identified by Pitner represented
conceptual models which served as a means for categorizing existing studies of
administrator effects on school outcomes. These five models were direct-effects,
moderated-effects, antecedent-effects, mediated-effects, and reciprocal-effects
(Pitner, 1982, pp. 105-108).
Current shifts in the area of principals’ leadership, from instructional to
transformational leadership, have resulted in a substantial decrease in the number
of studies focused on examining the instructional leadership style of school
principals. The majority of the empirical studies on instructional leadership and
school effectiveness have been conducted in the context of the dominating “loosely
coupled” educational system of governance in the U. S. Recent changes related to the
implementation of the standards-based reform movement emphasize the
instructional leadership aspects of school leaders. Among few quantitative studies in
the post-1995 period, one conducted by Louis et al. examined behaviors common to
principals of schools with high student achievement. Controlling for pertinent
principal and school background characteristics such as race/ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, and gender, Louis et al. (1996) found that leaders in high
achieving schools “worked effectively to stimulate professional discussion and to
create the networks of conversation that tied faculty together around common issues
of instruction and teaching” (p. 194).

Third International Mathematics and Science Study 1999 (TIMSS 1999)


The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)
initiated a set of international studies to measure student achievement in various
subject areas, and provide researchers, evaluators, and policy makers with the
resultant information about educational performance. One of the most ambitious
projects supported by this organization was TIMSS 1999, in which more than half a
million students (third and fourth, seventh and eighth, and twelfth grades) from 38
countries around the world were tested in mathematics and science. Besides being
interested in measuring trends in students’ achievement, the TIMSS 1999 researchers
also collected a wealth of data - background information received from students,
mathematics and science teachers, and school principals to help the researchers
better understand the context in which teaching/learning of math and science is
taking place.
The TIMSS 1999 was a repetition and continuation of the TIMSS 1995. It was a
repetition in the sense that one half of the items on which students had been tested
were kept the same and the core technical aspects of the study paralleled the 1995
study. It was a continuation in the sense that new testing items were introduced and
technical aspects were improved to some extent based on the experiences from the
1995 study. Keeping half of testing items (not released in public) unchanged
provided a basis for the longitudinal examination of student achievement. For
example, to assess the impact of math and science instruction at the middle school
level, students’ performance could have been measured at two points in time: in
1995 as fourth graders (pre-middle school scores) and in 1999 as eighth graders
(post-middle school scores). The fact that nationally representative samples of
students were used in both studies allowed generalizations and, consequently, the
above-mentioned comparison.
TIMSS researchers used a two-stage sample data design to select student Population
2. The sampling procedure consists of random sampling of 150 schools, and within
each school a random selection of 2 classrooms: one eighth-grade and one seventh-
grade math classroom. This type of selection criteria led to a sample of at least 7,500
students. Smaller adjustments by countries were allowed as long as they complied
with the prescribed TIMSS standards framework.
The TIMSS 1999 Content Advisory Committee used 308 items (162 mathematics and
146 science) to assess student achievement in these areas. The entire pool of items
was distributed among eight Test Achievement Booklets. Each tested student was
expected to complete one randomly assigned Test Achievement Booklet in a 90-
minute period. Approximately two-thirds of the items that the students received had
a multiple-choice format, while the remaining third had a constructed-response
format. Eleven content areas from the fields of mathematics and science were used
to test math and science comprehension of population 2 (seventh and eighth
graders). Six content areas were covered by the mathematics test. These areas and
the percentage of items dedicated to each area included fractions and number sense
(34%); algebra (18%); geometry (15%); data representation, analysis, and probability
(14%); measurement (12%); and proportionality (7%). The eighth-grade science test
covered five broader content areas: physics (30%); life science (30%); earth science
(16%); chemistry (14%); and environmental issues and nature of science (10%)
(Martin et al., 2000).
Students’ mathematics and science achievement results were summarized using item
response theory. This procedure was based on item scoring based on their level of
difficulty. In other words, this method provides calculation of test scores by
averaging student responses to each item, taking into account the difficulty level of
each item (Adams, 1997).
In addition to the Student Achievement Booklets designed to measure students’
proficiency in mathematics and science, TIMSS researchers gathered extensive data
on student background information, curriculum, instructional practices, school
policies, and other aspects of the school environment that directly and indirectly
may impact student achievement. The School Background Questionnaire itself
contains items about school characteristics, school resources, and school policies
related to mathematics and science achievement.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
For the purposes of this research study, a combination of a modified Bossert’s (1982)
framework and Pitner’s moderated effects model (1982) will be utilized. According
to Bossert’s model, a principal’s managerial behavior is shaped by school context
(external and district) and the principal’s personal characteristics. At the same time,
a principal’s managerial behavior directly influences school climate and
instructional organization, and indirectly school outcomes (student learning and
performance). Figure 1 (Bossert, 1982, pp. 38) provides a graphical view of the
Bossert’s model.
Figure 1. Bossert’s model of the principal’s influence on student learning

Personal characteristics School climate


Principal’s
District characteristics management Student learning
behavior
External characteristics Instructional organization

As obvious from the proposed framework, the school principal’s managerial


behavior (prevalent leadership style) may be at the same time considered a
dependent and an independent variable. It plays the dependent variable role in
relation to principal’s personal characteristics, district characteristics, and external
characteristics variables, while it plays an independent variable role when related to
school outcomes. It is important to observe the “mono-directional” character of the
model, with no shared interaction among variables.
The researchers modified Bossert’s framework by leaving out antecedent variables
(context and leader’s personal characteristics), assuming that these characteristics are
already embedded in the leader’s dominant leadership style. By leaving out the
variables with potential antecedent effects, the nature of the model changes, and
researchers look at the indirect effect of leadership style on school outcomes,
moderated by the presence of a third variable (school climate). Modification of the
Bossert’s model leads to the utilization of Pitner’s moderated effects model (1982).
Pitner speculated that the presence of a third, moderating variable may influence the
relationship between the independent and dependent variable (effects of
administrator’s leadership style on school outcomes). Normally, researchers theorize
that administrator effects would occur under one set of conditions and not under
another. Figure 2 depicts Pitner’s model of moderated effects of administrator’s
behavior (Pitner, 1982, pp. 108). It is obvious from the figure that a1 represents a
generic variable indicating leadership style, while y1 represents a generic variable
indicating school outcomes.

Figure 2. Modified graphical representation of Pitner’s Moderated Effects Model

a1 y1 a1 Y2

Condition absent Condition present

The researchers were interested in exploring the relationship between the principal’s
leadership style and student scores in math and science testing, when the third
moderating variable is introduced in the model. The “cooperation and collaboration
among teachers in school” is the moderating variable in this model. We speculated
that the presence/absence of this variable influences the nature of the relationship
between the independent and dependent variable. Only in conjunction with the
presence of the third variable, would a statistically significant relationship be found
between predictor and criterion.

METHODOLOGY
This section includes a detailed description of the research design and proposed
methodology for examining the relationship between principals’ leadership style
and student achievement in mathematics and science testing. Additionally,
information on the participants in the study, instruments used for answering
research questions, procedures, and data analysis will be provided.
The major research question addressed in this study was examination of the
relationship between students’ scores on math and science testing in the TIMSS 1999
and type of school principals’ leadership style for the USA sample. Collaboration
and cooperation among school teachers was introduced as a grouping variable. A
paragraph on procedures will explain in more detail the way in which all variables
involved in the study were operationalized.
The primary researchers of the TIMSS-R database used a two-stage stratified sample
design to select schools and student samples for the study. First, a random sample
of schools was selected, followed by a random sample of two classes from each
school. Two hundred and forty schools were randomly selected and within each
school two classrooms of eighth graders were randomly selected, totaling 9, 072
eighth graders and comprising a nationally representative sample. The student
subjects tested consisted of 50.9% males and 49.1% females. The gender of the 240
middle school principals selected was not included in the School Background
Questionnaire (Gonzales & Miles, 2001).
Instruments used are the School Background Questionnaire, completed by principals
from the U.S. schools participating in the TIMSS 1999 study, and students’
Achievement Tests in Science and Mathematics (8 booklets containing mixed
contents in mathematics and science, one of which is taken by each participating
student).
Data from the School Background Questionnaire for this particular study involve
items BCBGACO1 through BCBGAC13 that address the issue of the number of hours
per month spent by principal on instructional issues (teaching, hiring teachers,
giving demonstration lessons, discussing educational objectives with teachers,
initiating curriculum revision and/or planning, training teachers, and providing
professional development activities), and the number of hours per month spent on
non-instructional issues (representing the school in the community, representing
the school in official meetings, internal administrative tasks, talking with parents,
counseling and disciplining students, and responding to education officials’
requests). Another three items, BCBGCOL1 through BCBGCOL3 from the principal’s
instrument, address the issue of collaboration and cooperation among teachers in the
school, and will be used for the purposes of categorizing schools for statistical
analyses.
The researchers were interested in students’ overall achievement in mathematics
and science. Therefore, no particular items from the students’ Achievement Test
Booklets were selected for the analysis. The total score, representing students’
overall performance in these subjects was used. The TIMSS Subject Matter Advisory
Committee ensured that the content of the tests reflected contemporary thinking
and priorities in the areas of math and science. Students were tested on the concepts
that were covered in their classes prior to testing. For Population 2 (eighth graders)
the math tests included six areas: fractions and number sense, proportionality,
measurement, data representation, analysis and probability, and geometry and
algebra. Science pieces in the test booklets covered topics from earth science, life
science, chemistry, physics, and environmental science.
The Achievement Test items that measured students’ proficiency in the
aforementioned content areas in math and science consisted of both multiple choice
questions that were easily quantified and free response questions (at about one-third
of the total set), for which a strict scoring rubric was developed and consistently
applied. For the free-response test items, a random sample of students’ responses was
reviewed and graded by two experts, and their grading results were compared for
the purposes of establishing trustworthy inter-rater reliability. It is important to
stress that scientists and mathematicians developed all test items. Also, for the
purposes of maximizing students’ exposure to content, but minimizing the workload
for each participant, a multiple matrix sample design (Adams & Gonzales, 1996) was
used to optimize the testing process. This particular design implies the use of a
process where each student responds only to a subset of items randomly selected
from the total pool of items. This procedure leads to the use of plausible values for
student scores, or simply stated, a prediction can be made of how well a student
would perform on the entire pool of items, based on the student performance on the
subset of items. Item-response theory was used to determine the final set of math
and science questions on which students would be tested.
The National Center for Education Statistics team of researchers for the Third
International Math and Science Study 1999 was responsible for administering the
School Background Questionnaires to the principals from the participating schools.
Participation in this study was entirely voluntary. Schools that rejected participation
were excluded and replacement schools were provided through random selection.
The history of the selection process was carefully documented. The National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES - U.S. Department of Education) provided the raw
data for these researchers’ use via the TIMSS 1999 database stored on the CD-ROM.
The CD-ROM contains all the information necessary for conducting secondary data
analysis.

DATA ANALYSIS
The researchers used the statistical program, Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences PC (SPSS-PC) version 10.7, to conduct statistical analyses required to answer
proposed research questions. The SPSS does not provide syntax for correct
calculation of standard errors for various quantitative methods for the complex
sample data design - the one employed by the primary TIMSS 1999 researchers. The
exception is calculation of the product moment in the correlation data analysis,
which represents the ratio of covariance (between predictor and criterion) and the
product of their standard deviations. Design effect is a function of both physical
quantities, and its effect is canceled for the calculation of the correlation coefficient.
Therefore, the correlation coefficient does not require additional adjustments, and
has the same value as if it were calculated for the sample random sampling data
design. For correct computation of means, percentages, and their standard errors,
the use of macros is required (Gonzales & Miles, 2001). The use of currently available
software, developed by the NCES related research groups (WesVar and AM), also
allows correct computation of standard errors for numerous methods of quantitative
methodology.
Students’ scores on math and science testing and principals’ instructional leadership
for the USA sample operationalized through the number of hours dedicated to
instructional leadership activities were examined and reported together with the
measures of skewness and kurtosis. The normality checks of data proved that
coefficients of skewness and kurtosis were outside normal limits, violating the
normality assumption, therefore non-parametric correlation (Spearman’s rho) was
used to answer the research question.
The instructional leadership construct was formed as a composite score of all School
Background Questionnaire items that address principals’ instructional activities
(teaching, giving demonstration lessons, discussing educational objectives with
teachers, initiating curriculum revision and/or planning, hiring teachers, training
teachers, and providing professional development activities). Similarly, a non-
instructional leadership construct represented a composite score of all the
questionnaire items that are non-instructional in nature (representing the school in
the community, representing the school in official meetings, internal administrative
tasks, talking with parents, counseling and disciplining students, and responding to
education officials’ requests).
As a moderating variable in this analysis the researchers used the construct
“collaboration and cooperation among teachers.” Three School Background
Questionnaire items (school policies that promote collaboration and cooperation,
discussing and sharing instructional materials and objectives among teachers, and
teachers’ meetings on a regular basis to promote instructional issues) represented as
dichotomous variables were recoded into the “collaboration and cooperation among
teachers” construct by using composite scores. Because all three variables were
categorical, with values “1” indicating the answer “no” and “2” indicating the answer
“yes”, the total possible score for the construct will range from 3 to 6. The
researchers imposed the following condition: if the total score is < or equal to 4, the
school will be considered as one that does not promote collaboration and
cooperation among the teachers, otherwise (if the total score is > 4), the school will
be considered as one that does promote collaboration and cooperation among the
teachers.
Even though the primary researchers of the TIMSS 1999 database proposed five math
and science achievement plausible values, with no particular preference toward the
use of any of these values, numerous analyses have been conducted using only the
first plausible value. Justification for this can be found in the researchers’
explanation that “the imputation error can be ignored” (Gonzales & Smith, 1997, ch.
6, p. 3), and the conclusions were reached upon conducting inter-correlations among
the five plausible scores. Although any of the five plausible values equally well
represent student scores in mathematics and science, the researchers used the mean
of the five plausible scores in mathematics and the mean of the five plausible scores
in science, as measures of student achievement in these areas. Additional averaging
of students’ scores in math and in science per school was required to appropriately
match these scores with school level data (leadership style). Statistical significance
for all statistical analyses was set at .01. Checks for effect sizes were made (Cohen,
1988).

FINDINGS
Prior to describing the findings of the correlation analyses, a descriptive summary
of the measures involved in the analysis will be provided. Descriptive information
about the number of hours per month dedicated to instructional and non-
instructional activities by the sample of middle school principals from the United
States and descriptive information about the eighth grade students’ average scores
on the TIMSS 1999 mathematics and science tests averaged by school are displayed
in Table 1.

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Leadership Activities and
Students Scores for the Middle Schools from the U.S. Sample of Schools
that Promote Collaboration and Cooperation of Teachers

N M SD Min Max
Number of hours per month
on instructional activities 2450 38.81 23.98 4 123
Number of hours per month
on non-instructional activities 2412 102.67 42.77 23 212
Students’ mathematics score per school 2636 500.67 48.12 400.59 666.42
Students’ average science score per school 2636 514.89 52.42 383.64 634.49

Descriptive information about the number of hours per month dedicated to


instructional and non-instructional activities as reported by the middle school
principals and eighth grade students’ average scores on the TIMSS 1999 mathematics
and science tests from the schools that promote collaboration and cooperation
among teachers is provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Leadership Activities and
Students Scores for the Middle Schools from the U.S. Sample that Do Not
Promote Collaboration and Cooperation of Teachers

N M SD Min Max
Number of hours per month
on instructional activities 4018 40.79 23.43 0 121
Number of hours per month
on non-instructional activities 3907 102.80 45.84 26 199
Students’ mathematics score per school 4725 494.41 51.23 347.32 625.08
Students’ average science score per school 4725 503.13 57.84 359.80 621.54

Findings of the correlation analysis between students’ scores on math and science
testing and principals’ leadership style - instructional and non-instructional, for both
types of schools - those that have written policies that encourage and support
collaboration and cooperation among teachers and those that do not have these written
policies in place, are summarized in the correlation tables 3 adn 4, respectively.
Table 3: Correlation Matrix of Leadership Styles and Student Scores on Math and
Science for the Schools that Do Not Promote Collaboration and
Cooperation among Teachers
Non-instructional Mathematics Science
leadership
Instructional (ρ = .299) (ρ = .083) (ρ = .103)
Leadership (n = 3819) (n = 4018) (n = 4018)
Non-instructional (ρ = .080) (ρ = .092)
leadership (n = 3907) (n = 3907)
Mathematics (ρ = .931)
(n = 4725)

Table 4: Correlation Matrix of Leadership Styles and Student Scores on Math and
Science for the Schools that Promote Collaboration and Cooperation among
Teachers
Non-instructional Mathematics Science
leadership
Instructional (ρ = .259) (ρ = .156) (ρ = .147)
Leadership (n = 2412) (n = 2450) (n = 2450)
Non-instructional (ρ = .116) (ρ = .196)
leadership (n = 2412) (n = 2412)
Mathematics (ρ = .911)
(n = 2636)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Two important questions discussed in the previous sections emerged after
performing the data analysis: 1) How is the school principal’s dominant leadership
style correlated with student achievement? and 2) What is the role of the school
policies that promote collaboration and cooperation among teachers in the
examination of principal’s leadership style and student achievement?
No significant differences were found in the strength of relationship between either
non-instructional leadership and student scores on math and science tests or the
instructional leadership and student scores on the same tests. The specific activities
performed by the school principal that were associated with both instructional and
non-instructional leadership styles have been demonstrated to be weakly but
positively correlated with students’ scores on the math and science tests. This
finding supports the conclusions of previously conducted studies, which indicate
that variables associated with the leadership style of school principals account but
for a small portion of student performance.
Due to the stronger relationship between both instructional and non-instructional
leadership and student scores present in the set of schools that promote
collaboration and cooperation among teachers, school principals may consider
having a set of written policies that encourage meetings among the teaching staff on
a regular basis - by grade level, by subject, and by other grouping criteria. Such an
effort may represent another important contributor to a school climate that is
conducive and supportive of student learning.
The major purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between principals’
leadership style and student achievement in the era of standard-based instruction
and the most recent systemic reform in education in the USA. This same issue has
been examined in the previous decades through a number of empirical studies, but
considering the changing milieu of the field of education, in the researchers’ view,
it was important to reexamine the relationship between the two constructs in the
new context. This new context imposes higher expectations on school principals,
who are contemplated to serve primarily as instructional leaders. The findings of
this study did not provide evidence of the superiority of instructional leadership
over the non-instructional, considering that the strength of the relationships
between instructional leadership and student performance and non-instructional
leadership and student achievement displayed similar trends.

References
Adams, R .J., Wu, M. L., & Macaskill, G. (1997). Scaling methodology and procedures
for the mathematics and science scales. In M. O. Martin and D. L. Kelly (Eds.)
Third International Mathematics and Science Study Technical Report, Volume 2,
Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Beck, L.G. and Murphy, J. (1993). Understanding the Principalship: Metaphorical
Themes 1920s-1990s. Teachers College, Columbia University New York and
London
Bossert, S. T. (1988). School effects. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on
educational administration (pp. 341-352). New York: Longman.
Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee G. (1982). The instructional management
role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18 (3), 34-64.
Bridges, E. M. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state of art, 1967-
1980. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18 (3), 12-33.
Erickson, D. A. (1967). The school administrator. Review of Educational Research,
37 (4), 417-432.
Fidler, B. (1997). School leadership: Some key ideas. School Leadership and
Management, 17 (1), 23-38.
Gonzales, E. J., & Miles, J. A. (2001). TIMSS 1999 User guide for the international
database, International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
Gonzales, E. J., & Smith, T. A. (1997). Users guide for the TIMSS international
database, Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996a). The principal’s role in school effectiveness: An
assessment of methodological progress, 1980-1995. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman,
D. Corson, P. Hallinger, and A. Hart (Eds.), International Handbook of
Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 723-783). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996b). Reassessing the principal role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32 (10), 5-44.
Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1994). Introduction: Exploring the impact of
principal leadership. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 206-218.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985a). Assessing the instructional management
behavior of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86 (2), 217-247.
Halpin, A. W. (1966). A paradigm for research on administrator behavior. In Theory
and Research in Administration (Halpin A. W., Ed.) New York: The Macmillan
Company, pp. 22-77.
Leitner, D. (1994). Do principals affect student outcome: An organizational
perspective. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 219-238.
Lipham, J. M. (1964). Organizational character of education: Administrative
behavior. Review of Educational Research, 34 (4), 435-454.
Louis, K. S., Kruse S. D., & Marks, H. M. (1996). Schoolwide Professional
Community. In Fred M. Newmann and Associates (Eds.) Authentic Achievement:
Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gregory, K. D., Hoyle, C., & Shen C. (2000). Effective
schools in science and mathematics. TIMSS International Study Center, Boston
College, Chestnut Hill, MA.
Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., Weil, M., & Mitman, A. (1983). Instructional leadership: A
conceptual framework. Planning and Changing, 14 (3), 137-149.
Pitner, N. (1982). The study of administrators effect and effectiveness. In N. Boyan
(Ed.), Handbook of research in educational administration (pp. 99-122). New
York: Longman.
Smith W. F., & Andrews, R. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make
difference. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
Alexandria, Virginia.
Sweeney, J. (1982). Research synthesis on effective school leadership. Educational
Leadership, 39 (5), 346-352.

You might also like